Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus)
Key Details
| Taxonomic Groups: | Vertebrate > bony fish (Actinopterygii) > Fish |
| Red List Status: | Least Concern (Not Relevant) [LC(nr)] |
| D5 Status: | Included in the baseline Red List Index for England (Wilkins, Wilson & Brown, 2022) |
| Section 41 Status: | (not listed) |
| Taxa Included Synonym: | (none) |
| UKSI Recommended Name: | Osmerus eperlanus |
| UKSI Recommended Authority: | (Linnaeus, 1758) |
| UKSI Recommended Qualifier: | (none specified) |
| Red List Citation: | Nunn et al., 2023 |
| Notes on taxonomy/listing: | (none) |
Criteria
| Question 1: | Does species need conservation or recovery in England? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Population has undergone severe historic decline and current populations are well below their favourable conservation status. |
| Question 2: | Does recovery/ conservation depend on species-specific actions? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Species is poorly represented in current monitoring programmes and historic fish passage solutions may not be suitable. This species is subject to a range of pressures including barriers to migration, water quality and exploitation. They also require bespoke monitoring programmes which are not currently in place and there are significant knowledge gaps in their ecology. If smelt are to achieve favourable conservation status, significant and often bespoke restoration actions will be required. |
| Question 3: | At a landscape scale, would the species benefit from untargeted habitat management to increase habitat mosaics, structural diversity, or particular successional stages? |
| Response: | Yes |
| Justification: | Smelt need a mosaic of riverine habitats such as spawning sites and flow diversity and refugia. |
Species Assessment
| Current step on the Species Recovery Curve (SRC): | 2. Biological status assessment exists |
| Recovery potential/expectation: | Low - Combination or other (detail in comments) |
| National Monitoring Resource: | Combination - insufficient |
| Species Comments: | Impacted by barriers to migration, pollution & exploitation. Smelt spawning areas can be restricted to small areas of suitable habitat due to migratory barriers at the tidal limit. Due to limited swimming capabilities they are at risk from barriers and entrainment. |
Key Actions
Key Action 1
Proposed Action: Undertake prioritised and targeted barrier removal or easement to deliver longitudinal connectivity across freshwater habitats and unhindered migratory passage for smelt.
Action targets: 7. Best approach adopted at appropriate scales
Action type: Pressure mitigation
Duration: 6-10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 2
Proposed Action: Deliver suitable monitoring programmes and techniques to assess smelt populations and spawning locations.
Action targets: 3. National Monitoring Plan agreed and implemented
Action type: Targeted monitoring
Duration: >10 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments:
Key Action 3
Proposed Action: Review available evidence and undertake research to determine exploitation and bycatch pressures. The information gained will inform and prioritise conservation actions to manage these pressures on the population.
Action targets: 5. Remedial action identified
Action type: Scientific research
Duration: 2 years
Scale of Implementation: National
High priority sites:
Comments:
Acknowledgment:
Data used on this website are adapted from Threatened species recovery actions 2025 baseline (JP065): Technical report and spreadsheet user guide (Natural England, 2025). Available here.